Drell’s Descants

From here:

MEMORANDUM TO: Working Group April 21, 2008

FROM: [Redacted]

RE: Canonical Violations

This memorandum evaluates whether the Presiding Bishop has violated the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church and what procedures would be applicable for charging her with a presentable offense. This memorandum identifies at least eleven violations of TEC’s constitution and canons by the Presiding Bishop in her dealings with Bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan and the Diocese of San Joaquin. Taken together, these actions demonstrate willful violation of the canons, an intention to repeat the violations and a pattern of concealment and lack of candor. In the case of DSJ, the fundamental polity of TEC as a “fellowship of duly constituted dioceses” under the ecclesiastical authority of the diocesan bishop has been subverted. The memorandum then addresses the procedural requirements for filing charges against the Presiding Bishop.
I. Canonical Violations By the Presiding Bishop

This memorandum does not address the possibility of charges against the Presiding Bishop for “[h]olding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church” under Canon IV.1(c) or the “open renunciation” of the discipline of the Church under Canon IV.9.1, both of which have different procedures than those discussed below. This memorandum is limited to whether the Presiding Bishop has violated the constitution and canons of TEC in recent actions she has taken against Bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan and the Diocese of San Joaquin.

Canon IV.1 provides that:

“A Bishop, Priest, or Deacon of this Church shall be liable to
Presentment and Trial for the following offenses, viz.:
…
(e) Violation of the Constitution or Canons of the General Convention.”

This memorandum outlines several violations of the constitution and canons that would provide a basis for filing charges against the Presiding Bishop. For purposes of discussion, these violations are considered in three groups: first, those related to Bishop Cox; second, those related to Bishop Duncan; and third, those related to the Diocese of San Joaquin.
Bishop Cox

Because the issues related to Bishop Cox involve a close reading of Canon IV.9, this canon is quoted here in full for ease of reference:

Sec. 1. If a Bishop abandons the communion of this Church (i) by an
open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this
Church, or (ii) by formal admission into any religious body not in
communion with the same, or (iii) by exercising episcopal acts in and
for a religious body other than this Church or another Church in
communion with this Church, so as to extend to such body Holy
Orders as this Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such
religious body Confirmation without the express consent and
commission of the proper authority in this Church; it shall be the duty
of the Review Committee, by a majority vote of All the Members, to
certify the fact to the Presiding Bishop and with the certificate to send
a statement of the acts or declarations which show such abandonment,
which certificate and statement shall be recorded by the Presiding
Bishop. The Presiding Bishop, with the consent of the three senior
Bishops having jurisdiction in this Church, shall then inhibit the said
Bishop until such time as the House of Bishops shall investigate the
matter and act thereon. During the period of Inhibition, the Bishop
shall not perform any episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts, except
as relate to the administration of the temporal affairs of the Diocese
of which the Bishop holds jurisdiction or in which the Bishop is then
serving.
Sec. 2. The Presiding Bishop, or the presiding officer, shall forthwith
give notice to the Bishop of the certification and Inhibition. Unless
the inhibited Bishop, within two months, makes declaration by a
Verified written statement to the Presiding Bishop, that the facts
alleged in the certificate are false or utilizes the provisions of Canon
IV.8 or Canon III.12.7, as applicable, the Bishop will be liable to
Deposition. If the Presiding Bishop is reasonably satisfied that the
statement constitutes (i) a good faith retraction of the declarations or
acts relied upon in the certification to the Presiding Bishop or (ii) a
good faith denial that the Bishop made the declarations or committed
the acts relied upon in the certificate, the Presiding Bishop, with the
advice and consent of a majority of the three senior Bishops consenting
to Inhibition, terminate the Inhibition. Otherwise, it shall be the duty
of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops
at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by
a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give
its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the
Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more
Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

Facts Relevant to Bishop Cox

The Review Committee identified in Canon IV.9 certified to the Presiding Bishop on May 29, 2007, that Bishop Cox had abandoned the communion of TEC. This certification was based on a letter from Bishop Cox to the Presiding Bishop offering to resign from the House of Bishops. Upon receiving the certification from the Review Committee, the Presiding Bishop did not confer with the three senior bishops of TEC or seek to inhibit Bishop Cox as required by the canon. She took no action until January 8, 2008, seven months later, when she sent Cox a letter advising him that he would be deposed under Canon IV.9 absent a retraction or denial within two months. Unlike the cases of Bishops Schofield and Duncan, none of the above facts was disclosed publicly by the Presiding Bishop.

Continue reading ‘The Memorandum Regarding The Potential Presentment Against The Presiding Bishop’

Perhaps she learned something from her Easter debacle about cow flatulence leading to drowning Fijians:

In this season: Pentecost 2008
A Letter to The Episcopal Church

My brothers and sisters in Christ,

As we come to the end of Eastertide and the feast of Pentecost, we shift to an awareness of God present with us in Holy Spirit. The early church marked that gift as inspiration, fire, and language — the breath of ever-new life and the burning desire for ongoing relationship with God. That gift of Holy Spirit keeps us lively and moving, bears us into new territory and challenges unsought.

In this as in every age, we face issues of identity, vocation, and mission as members of the Body of Christ. Entering the long season of Pentecost brings our focus to how we, too, will follow Jesus inspired by Holy Spirit. I would like to offer a few reminders about identity, vocation, and mission that I shared recently with the people of the Diocese of San Joaquin:

1) Jesus is Lord. In the same sense that early Christians proclaimed that Jesus, not Caesar, is Lord, remember that no one else — not any hierarch, not any ecclesiastical official, not any one of you — is Lord. We belong to God, whom we know in Jesus, and there is no other place where we find the ground of our identity.

2) We are all made in the image of God. Even when we can’t see that image of God immediately, we are challenged to keep searching for it, especially in those who may call us enemy.

3) In baptism we discover that we are meant to be for others, in the same way that God is for us. This means that God’s mission must be the primary focus, not anything that focuses on our own selves to the exclusion of neighbor. For when we miss the neighbor, we miss God.

4) None of us is alone. We cannot engage the fullness of God’s mission alone, nor know the fullness of God’s reality alone. Together as members of the Body of Christ, we can begin to try. And the Spirit, burning fire, inspiring breath, and speaking in many tongues, is present in that Body, empowering and emboldening and strengthening our work. Thanks be to God who continually makes us new.

Your servant in Christ,

+Katharine Jefferts Schori